If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I changed Leone(795) to gold and gave it mine value 40 and removed knowledge of it from all west African countries. I removed ownership of it from Ashtanti.(as a footnote: Ashtanti should probably not exist at the start of the game as they were not a highly organized state meriting a nation at that time yet. I would recommend making them a revolter and make a historic event to trigger their existence at the time if they have not revolted prior to this. Mossi could be given to Mossi at the start of the game.)

I gave the Canaries 2,000 natives(conviniently set by default on aggressiveness 0)

I upped the native populations of Gambia, Casamance, and Zambezi from 1,000 to 1,500.

I lowered the native populations of Nouachkott, Nouadibuh, and Tassaret to 1,000 each.

I lowered the native hostility of Nouachkott and Leone to very low(1).

I lowered the TP penalty success rate for the provinces on the West and south East African coasts to 2(Nouachkott to Guinea, Douala to Lobito, and Inhambane to Mtawa).

I increased the TP penalty success rate for the provinces on the Brazil Coast to 3, if they are not by default set to this or higher).

I increased the TP penalty success rate for Fernando Po slightly and decreased the penalty for it's colonization rate(it should now function statistically very similarly to other tropical islands that had sugar plantations).

I increased the base commodity value of slaves from 5 to 8.

My intention in all these changes is to make Portugal, fairly constistently, be one fo the richest nations in europe in the last quarter of the 15th century, to make Tago usually surpass Veneto as the largest market in europe during the last 1/3 ofthe 15th century, to make TPing west Africa and Portugal colonizing Cape verde, Nouachkott, Leone, and Fernando Po as monetarily profitable for Portugal in the last half of the 15th century, as going straight for brazil, South Africa, and the Carribean. To eliminate the motivation for a human player to progress in colonizing and exploring in a non-historical way, to make an AI Portuguese player develope more closely along historical lines, and to set up Portugal better for events not yet made or adjusted for Indian Ocean conquest.

I've playtested most of this pretty thoroughly and it seems to work well. Portugal does not become ridiculously powerful in an un-natural way. The AI responds better to historical objectives too. However Doktarr's idea for Portuguese vassilization if they have a mainland province annexed I think is a really good idea and will probably fix AI portuguese problems. Make the event Doktarr I want to try it out!

If there are any objections to these additions, please submit posts in this thread as the Portugal and Indian Ocean nations thread should be reserved more narrowly for its intended topic. Same for any questions about why I made a particular change.

If there are no significant objections to these changes I'll put a post in the submissions thread in a few more days as most of these changes have been debated thoroughly already.

-I haven't looked into the slave price issue. I may want to object to that if I don't see the effect that you posted.
-As I've mentioned before I have serious problems with the population for the Azores due to the fact that it can be exploited to allow colony formation. I thought that you had agreed to delay it until 1471, the death of Isabel. Clearly I misunderstood.
-Similarly I don't see why the conquistador should live 10 years. This allows all sorts of exploits (i.e., exploring all of Brazil). He should be available for less than 5 years, I suggest 3. I'd also suggest that you also give him "province=795" so that he will appear in El Mina. I'd also make him dormant and wake him with event 260048.
-I don't much object to the taxvalue increases, but still don't really understand your motivation for increasing them. I agree with your previous concerns, and will suggest that we reduce taxvalues in the Caribbean, as you had pointed out.
-I don't mind the culture changes in Africa, but I suspect others might. I'd be interested to hear what Garbon has to say.

BY the way I just noted the date for El Mina. Was it related to the conclusion of the treaty of Alcacovas dividing the overseas territories betwen Spain and Portugal two years earlier? If so perhaps the event should be slept if Portugal refuses to sign the treaty of Alcacovas. This would be an interesting choice - the Canaries vs. West Africa.

" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB

-I haven't looked into the slave price issue. I may want to object to that if I don't see the effect that you posted.
-As I've mentioned before I have serious problems with the population for the Azores due to the fact that it can be exploited to allow colony formation. I thought that you had agreed to delay it until 1471, the death of Isabel. Clearly I misunderstood.
-Similarly I don't see why the conquistador should live 10 years. This allows all sorts of exploits (i.e., exploring all of Brazil). He should be available for less than 5 years, I suggest 3. I'd also suggest that you also give him "province=795" so that he will appear in El Mina. I'd also make him dormant and wake him with event 260048.
-I don't much object to the taxvalue increases, but still don't really understand your motivation for increasing them. I agree with your previous concerns, and will suggest that we reduce taxvalues in the Caribbean, as you had pointed out.
-I don't mind the culture changes in Africa, but I suspect others might. I'd be interested to hear what Garbon has to say.

BY the way I just noted the date for El Mina. Was it related to the conclusion of the treaty of Alcacovas dividing the overseas territories betwen Spain and Portugal two years earlier? If so perhaps the event should be slept if Portugal refuses to sign the treaty of Alcacovas. This would be an interesting choice - the Canaries vs. West Africa.

Fair enough Isaac, I'll wait on the slaves price. But if at all possible please check it out soon and let me know what you think because to me it seems one of the most important ingredients to making west africa work for Portugal and other europeans arriving there at a later date..

I'll change it to 1471 if you like. Any ideas about how to re-word the event for that.

I'll switch the conquistador to 3 years. The reason why he doesn't appear with the event is because the AI will just move him off asap. And he does arrive in Leone in January. I did this in hopes of triggering the AI to colonize there. If you think realism should have priority I could rework it so that he just appears with the event or switch the event to January. Suppose the AI chooses no for the event or Leone or it is destroyed by a native uprising. These 2 things can happen at present but usually won't. I think Portugal should still get him. The idea that the king might have just used him for some other colonization project seems reasonable to me. And he will just appear in the next closest occupied province won't he? Perhaps his movement value should be changed to 6 to make sure that he does really make a difference colonizationwise for those 3 years.

The culture change is to help the AI. If the AI doesn't colonize prior to the events. These 2 provinces remain with their default religions and cultures when the events happen. And this reduces the chance of colonization success, and consequently make these 2 provinces a lower priority for the AI to colonize. Read the colonization FAQ if you would like more information on this. Besides they do change once you as a player or an AI gets 1 successful colonization in anyways, and yes they stay changed even if the colony is destroyed.

The tax value increase is just to make Fernando Po more balanced in proportion to the other tropical sugar plantation islands in the game. If they are all lowered then I'd say it should be reduced to +1 or nothing depending on how much the others are lowered. The high tax for these provinces is supposed to represent land tax. Is that unrealistic? I'm assuming initially there wasn't any but may have been at a later date. Like I said before I'm game either way as long as it's fair and balanced for all of these kind of provinces. This event can always be adjusted later if the base tax value for these provinces is. Also if it is lowered maybe increasing the base value of sugar by 1 might be fair. It's at 16 now but rarely reaches 200% demand because only refineries modify it's demand and many games not that many are made. Besides if many refineries are in the game shouldn't it be ridiculously valueable then anyways.

The thing about the Azores +1,200 pop is that it's pretty much necessary to prevent the Azores form having abnormally low pops, which is the norm unfortunately at the presesnt. In fact I've found out that if a plague hits the Azores too soon after this event, and unfortunately it happens often, that the pop increase is almost worthless anyways. My making this event popwise only solves the problem sometimes unfortunately. As for the manpower increase. I checked out the base manpower for the Azores and it is 1. So upping it to 2 just makes it barely a bigger contributer. At 1 base manpower it will supply .3 manpower till it hits 5,001 and then it goes to .5 manpower. With the manpower increase it will be .8 at this point instead and 1.0 at 20,001 pop. Doesn't seem controversal to me after closer analysis. It is a province that gets screwed at present statswise. And this event just corrects that a little. Do you by any chance think that tax has somethnig to do with manpower? It seems from older posts that you do. Tax has nothing to do with manpower. If you read the 2 manpower FAQs you'll see that. If your still skeptical that the Azores had decent pops especially early read this website herehttp://www.mirapico.dk/azores.html
and the book if you can it will clearly show what I'm talking about.

Not sure if Elmina construction date has anything to do with the Treaty of Alcacovas. The Castilians were trading with Guinea right in the spot of Elmina during the war between Castile and Portugal before the treay was concluded. However the plans for Elmina were started after this and with the new king Joao II. So it's possible that the Portuguese were Castile paranoid and that was part of it. But I didn't read that outright form the sources and the other explanations for building are adequate enoughy to justify it's construction anyways.

Also it occured to me that I should include Oporto's terrain change in this too when I submit it.

I'll change it to 1471 if you like. Any ideas about how to re-word the event for that.

...In 1466 Afonso V of Portugal granted to the Duchess Isabel of Burgundy, his aunt, feudal privilege in the Azores. Through her death in 1471, and thereafter, many Flemish settlers came to the islands.

I'll switch the conquistador to 3 years. The reason why he doesn't appear with the event is because the AI will just move him off asap. And he does arrive in Leone in January. I did this in hopes of triggering the AI to colonize there. If you think realism should have priority I could rework it so that he just appears with the event or switch the event to January. Suppose the AI chooses no for the event or Leone or it is destroyed by a native uprising. These 2 things can happen at present but usually won't. I think Portugal should still get him. The idea that the king might have just used him for some other colonization project seems reasonable to me. And he will just appear in the next closest occupied province won't he? Perhaps his movement value should be changed to 6 to make sure that he does really make a difference colonizationwise for those 3 years.

Fine, it's not that big of a deal. 6 seems excessive, but lots of conquistadors do get a 6.

The culture change is to help the AI. If the AI doesn't colonize prior to the events. These 2 provinces remain with their default religions and cultures when the events happen. And this reduces the chance of colonization success, and consequently make these 2 provinces a lower priority for the AI to colonize. Read the colonization FAQ if you would like more information on this. Besides they do change once you as a player or an AI gets 1 successful colonization in anyways, and yes they stay changed even if the colony is destroyed.

Yes I understand all of that. And I accept that it is necessary to accomplish what you want to do. So I think it's a good idea. I just wanted to point out there has frequently been strong opposition to European cultured provinces in India and Africa and so on. So others may not like it.

Do you by any chance think that tax has something to do with manpower? It seems from older posts that you do. Tax has nothing to do with manpower.

No I've never suggested that at all. What taxvalue affects is the number of troops that can be raised on the province at any one time. This allows the AI to put bigger armies on the island, which is bad. It also affects attrition, which is a minor point, but should count for something (attrition ought to be high on most of these islands). Higher attrition would also make the AI less likely to lose the islands. Well it would if there were a fort...

If your still skeptical that the Azores had decent pops especially early read this website herehttp://www.mirapico.dk/azores.html
and the book if you can it will clearly show what I'm talking about.

It's still not talking about urban population. But if you want to use rural population as a proxy for taxvalue then I can see your point. However, I'm still pretty sure that the population in metropolitan Portugal is much higher.

Not sure if Elmina construction date has anything to do with the Treaty of Alcacovas. The Castilians were trading with Guinea right in the spot of Elmina during the war between Castile and Portugal before the treay was concluded. However the plans for Elmina were started after this and with the new king Joao II. So it's possible that the Portuguese were Castile paranoid and that was part of it. But I didn't read that outright form the sources and the other explanations for building are adequate enoughy to justify it's construction anyways.

But the treaty is what barred the Castillians from trading into West Africa. Without the treaty there is no Portuguese monopoly, and the tenure there is (legally) insecure. All I'm suggesting is that if Portugal refuses to ratify the treaty (thereby keeping their core on the Canaries) that they shouldn't get this event. To me that's a reasonable trade off - a big bonus on an impotant province, or keeping a core on a European province. Interesting choice.

Also it occured to me that I should include Oporto's terrain change in this too when I submit it.

I like that. And how about a seige 1 for Albequerque? That's pretty easy to justify....

" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB

...In 1466 Afonso V of Portugal granted to the Duchess Isabel of Burgundy, his aunt, feudal privilege in the Azores. Through her death in 1471, and thereafter, many Flemish settlers came to the islands.

Fine, it's not that big of a deal. 6 seems excessive, but lots of conquistadors do get a 6.

Yes I understand all of that. And I accept that it is necessary to accomplish what you want to do. So I think it's a good idea. I just wanted to point out there has frequently been strong opposition to European cultured provinces in India and Africa and so on. So others may not like it.

No I've never suggested that at all. What taxvalue affects is the number of troops that can be raised on the province at any one time. This allows the AI to put bigger armies on the island, which is bad. It also affects attrition, which is a minor point, but should count for something (attrition ought to be high on most of these islands). Higher attrition would also make the AI less likely to lose the islands. Well it would if there were a fort...

It's still not talking about urban population. But if you want to use rural population as a proxy for taxvalue then I can see your point. However, I'm still pretty sure that the population in metropolitan Portugal is much higher.

But the treaty is what barred the Castillians from trading into West Africa. Without the treaty there is no Portuguese monopoly, and the tenure there is (legally) insecure. All I'm suggesting is that if Portugal refuses to ratify the treaty (thereby keeping their core on the Canaries) that they shouldn't get this event. To me that's a reasonable trade off - a big bonus on an impotant province, or keeping a core on a European province. Interesting choice.

I like that. And how about a seige 1 for Albequerque? That's pretty easy to justify....

Good I'll switch the description to that.

I see. That would make sense. But from what I've seen since you pointed this out, Portugal usually moves troops off the Azores just fine. When you saw problems with this was it with vanilla GC. Because the Portuguese AI in the AGC-EEP gets more fleets than the vanilla.

The Alcosovas idea is interesting but I don't think it's historically justifiable. Portugal could have just built the fort anyways. Castilian trading in the west coast of Africa effected Portugal's trading there very little. It was mostly an issue of greed and a worry that eventually it could cut into too much of Portugal's profits. Portugal still had a stronger navy too. So Castile was running big risks trading along the west African coast. When the fortress was built it was built very quickly most of the building supplies were shipped there. it seems unlikely to me that if Castile and Portugal were still at war that it wouldn't of been built. The main reason for it's being built was to better fascilitate trade in gold with the natives in the surrounding population. And If Afonso V lived a little longer or Joao II never became king it's very possible it would never have been built or built much later.

As a footnote to earlier debates. I found out that in 1486 Joao II granted city status to Elmina according to the main source on it's founding.

Albuquerque does get 1 siege currently. I think it often doesn't show though becasue of upgrades to offensive doctrine by then. Are you suggesting upping it to 2?

I experimented a little more with the base value of slaves, and I found that if it is 7 it will make a level 6 TP start at 3. But this is upped by 1 to 4 when Sao Tome is colonized. This might work too, at least for gameplay purposes. It's probably too low for historical accuracy though.

The Alcosovas idea is interesting but I don't think it's historically justifiable. Portugal could have just built the fort anyways. Castilian trading in the west coast of Africa effected Portugal's trading there very little. It was mostly an issue of greed and a worry that eventually it could cut into too much of Portugal's profits. Portugal still had a stronger navy too. So Castile was running big risks trading along the west African coast. When the fortress was built it was built very quickly most of the building supplies were shipped there. it seems unlikely to me that if Castile and Portugal were still at war that it wouldn't of been built. The main reason for it's being built was to better fascilitate trade in gold with the natives in the surrounding population. And If Afonso V lived a little longer or Joao II never became king it's very possible it would never have been built or built much later.

The timing seems to imply that it's related. It also would make the Alcacovas decision more interesting for Portugal, as of right now it's just too tempting to keep the core. I understand that the Castillians were never really important in West Africa, but surely the fact that they were explicitly excluded made it much easier for Portugal to justify the investment of building the fort. It made it much more clear that there was a long term opportunity for profits in West Africa. If the Castillians began taking more of the trade, prices would drop and it would be harder to justify the fort. Now that's all hypothetical of course, but it would help a lot to have a down side to rejecting Alcacovas.

Albuquerque does get 1 siege currently. I think it often doesn't show though becasue of upgrades to offensive doctrine by then. Are you suggesting upping it to 2?

Woops. My mistake.

I experimented a little more with the base value of slaves, and I found that if it is 7 it will make a level 6 TP start at 3. But this is upped by 1 to 4 when Sao Tome is colonized. This might work too, at least for gameplay purposes. It's probably too low for historical accuracy though.

I don't think anyone was really making big money on the slave trade until the plantation system began in Brazil. As such having it start out lowish isn't unreasonable. I also think that you're including rounding effects that only show up in the display. The game works in real numbers, so 8 and 7 almost certainly make a difference of 12.5% to the value. But the display rounds. Nice that Sao Tome makes a difference. I still wonder if we couldn't get decent effects by adding more cotton and or sugar in Eurasia rather than changing the base of slaves. But 5 to 7 isn't a huge change so I don't mind.

" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB

The timing seems to imply that it's related. It also would make the Alcacovas decision more interesting for Portugal, as of right now it's just too tempting to keep the core. I understand that the Castillians were never really important in West Africa, but surely the fact that they were explicitly excluded made it much easier for Portugal to justify the investment of building the fort. It made it much more clear that there was a long term opportunity for profits in West Africa. If the Castillians began taking more of the trade, prices would drop and it would be harder to justify the fort. Now that's all hypothetical of course, but it would help a lot to have a down side to rejecting Alcacovas.

Woops. My mistake.

I don't think anyone was really making big money on the slave trade until the plantation system began in Brazil. As such having it start out lowish isn't unreasonable. I also think that you're including rounding effects that only show up in the display. The game works in real numbers, so 8 and 7 almost certainly make a difference of 12.5% to the value. But the display rounds. Nice that Sao Tome makes a difference. I still wonder if we couldn't get decent effects by adding more cotton and or sugar in Eurasia rather than changing the base of slaves. But 5 to 7 isn't a huge change so I don't mind.

Well I suppose your right about keeping the canaries as a core, but it's probably still worth doing. I'd say it's better than the Elmina event. Obviously an AI Portugal will do what it's supposed to most of the time. I'll go with your suggestions here and submit it this way.

I moved the Elmina event to January. This will prevent loans from being taken at the time. Also the fleet to built the fort may have set out in 81' but it was actually built in January anyways. So Da Azambuja will show up at this time too in Leone.

The thing about the slave trade is that it was a reasonable size t obegin with, but not huge. it was very profitable for it's size right away. But level 6 TP making contributing only 2 to a COT just seems to unrealistic to me. The fact that there are only a few slaves provoinces that portugal will TP until late 15th century I think reflects thos smaller sized slave trade adequately enough. Slaves were being imported to the Azores, Madeira, cape verde, Sao Tome, as well as mainland Portugal. Castile also imported them to Castile when they were trading in west Africa.

I still think 8 base value for slaves is better but I suppose I'll submit it as 7 if I don't get any good support from you or anyone else.

By the way what do you think about the idea of making Castile have an explorer mid 15th century and programming the AI for it's monarch to explore west Africa. It wouldn't need to live more than say 3 years, maybe 4 tops. And then west african coastal provinces that castile would own would be ceded to Portugal in exchange for the Canaries, assuming Castile TPed or colonized 1 or 2.

Allows human Castille to do all sorts of bad things. Would really mess up MP if he lives 3 years.

8d for slaves or 7 dpoesn't make much difference to me. You prefer 8.

To me it's an open question how all the stuff you're doing will play out in MP. I don't know enough to have an opinion, but it seems like it ought to be OK.

" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB

The timing seems to imply that it's related. It also would make the Alcacovas decision more interesting for Portugal, as of right now it's just too tempting to keep the core. I understand that the Castillians were never really important in West Africa, but surely the fact that they were explicitly excluded made it much easier for Portugal to justify the investment of building the fort. It made it much more clear that there was a long term opportunity for profits in West Africa. If the Castillians began taking more of the trade, prices would drop and it would be harder to justify the fort. Now that's all hypothetical of course, but it would help a lot to have a down side to rejecting Alcacovas.

I'm looking at the treaty of Alcocovas and it seems to me that it is only triggered if Portugal keeps the Canaries in the "Reconsider the Canarian Case." It also seems to be connected to an event with Castile. I'm not sure I can figure out how to work the Elmina event to trigger correctly with these. Are you able to rework these Isaac? I'm assuming that of the Alcocovas event never needs to be triggered that the Elmina event should still be triggered.

Your event could be slept in option B of events 260005 and 260003 (one only happens if Castille refuses to become Spain). Basically if Portugal refuses to give up the core the Elmina event is slept. In all other cases (Portugal gave up the core earlier, Spain and/or Castille doesn't exist, etc. etc.) the event should happen.

" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB

Your event could be slept in option B of events 260005 and 260003 (one only happens if Castille refuses to become Spain). Basically if Portugal refuses to give up the core the Elmina event is slept. In all other cases (Portugal gave up the core earlier, Spain and/or Castille doesn't exist, etc. etc.) the event should happen.

You can only get one of those two events no matter what. If Spain exists (as it should) you get 260003, if Castille exists you get 26005. As soon as one fires the other is prevented from triggering.

" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB

I did check on the slaves thing. You are right - I had remembered incorrectly.

" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB

I got the book "The Portuguese Seaborne Empire" by C. R. Boxer from the library, and it says on pg. 53 that the bulk of the emigrants and adventurers that went overseas were from Oporto, Lisbon, Madeira, and the Azores. It also says that the Algarve never had a population it could support until the 2nd half of the 19th century.

Oporto should have it's population increased a little and the Algarve decreased a little. Currently Oporto is 7,000, ALgarve is 7,500, and Tago is 13,000. Also Algarve will outgrow Oporto by an even bigger margin if the Naval Manufactory is put there.

I think Algarve should be lowered to 5,000 pop and Oporto increased to 10,000.

" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB

In the Portugal and Indian Ocean Nations thread I reccomended that the "Commercial Conflict in the Indian Ocean" event be scrapped for reasons expressed there.

This leaves Portugal without an early shipyard. Although there is no historical justifiacation for putting it there with that event anyways. It was just there with the vanilla.

I think Portugal should get it. No doubt their ship production in the mid 15th century increased. I'm unaware of a huge jump at 1500 justifying its placement with the "Commercial Conflict in the Indian Ocean" event though.

I noticed that with the "Henry's captains events," Portugal gets extra warships. At present a human player usually just scraps them because of support cost. Also it hurts the AI alot too, especially since the AI doesn't srcap them. With the frequent shortlived explorers that Portugal gets in the 15th century it really is unnecessary to get extra warships. Not sure how this is historically justified anyways.

Obviously from around the Time that Prince Henry was sending explorers to explore west Africa Portugal began building up it's navy more. Although it is difficult to pinpoint an exact time when and if there was a big burst of it.

I recommend that all these extra warships be deleted from these events and Portugal gain a shipyard with the first henry's captains event. This should reduce signifcantly the need to delete warships early for Portugal, help in it's support cost for its navy, and most importantly help the AI who gets screwed the worst with the current arrangements of events in this matter.

Under the beta test Portugal can support those ships, although I expect that to change. So I think it's a good idea to ditch them. I'm not so sure that they should get the shipyard that early. mid-late 15th century seems about right to me. Otherwise why not start them with it? Not sure what's a good event for it.

" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB

Just noticed the submission.
The two events "Settlement of El Mina/Arguin" do not have any balance between a and b options. I think the b's should be made viable choices compared to the very good a options, or scrapped, since it will only cripple the AI. No human player will ever take them.